Still waiting for discussion of the WSDOT “that can do no wrong” getting their pee-pee’s whacked. Being reported to the Public Disclosure Comission for illegally using our tax dollars to fund their bullshit anti I-912 scare tactic campaign. What?! No justification? Imagine that. (see Seattle PI for Tuesday and other papers for the story)

How come you lefties dropped Cindy Sheehan like a hot potato? She’s still out there protesting. I thought she was going to end the war.

by Goldy, 08/19/2005, 1:44 PM

“Sheehan vigil marks the end of Bush’s war”

“In focusing on Cindy Sheehan the person, rather than Cindy Sheehan the symbol, President Bush and his surrogates have missed the point entirely. Even if they could succeed in destroying Sheehan’s reputation, there are plenty of other grieving mothers ready to take her place… with Bush’s war creating more every day. What Sheehan started cannot be stopped by a mere smear campaign.”

Her reputation is destroyed, not by the Bush Administration, but by her own words and actions.

-Being reported to the Public Disclosure Comission for illegally using our tax dollars to fund their bullshit anti I-912 scare tactic campaign. What?! No justification? Imagine that. (see Seattle PI for Tuesday and other papers for the story) –

Holy cow – just when it looked like poor Mark’s couldn’t get any more silly. Here’s the justification, straight from the P-I article the Really Slow Mark pointed us to!

“MacDonald defended his agency’s efforts to tell the public about projects that would be financed by the increase in the state gas tax, which was 28 cents per gallon before lawmakers acted.”

So what if the flailing and floundering I-912 clowns filed a complaint? ANYBODY can file a complaint about ANYTHING. Anybody feel like reporting Mark to the PDC for being a forever ignorant idiot?

Goldy, you know you are doing a fine job of reporting the news and observations when your open thread gets 80% comments from our personal pet trolls. Come to think of it, when I think of our #1 pet troll (Mr Irrelevant) I always see him as one of those stupid looking troll dolls from the 60’s, pink hare, big ears long nose and all.

Libertarian@5. I don’t think the tolls on the narrows bridge are fair either. Why should they be the only ones to pay tolls for their projects, when everyone else gets their projects paid for by the taxpayers. Its double taxation. Narrows Bridge users get to pay for their own capital improvement, and in the meantime they get to fund everyone else’s as well. But, I think that’s a different issue – and requires a different strategy than opposing the gas tzx.

I’m still voting NO on I-912. I support the gas tax, it is long overdue, and I’d support it at double the rate. In fact, I think the gas tax should be a percentage of the price at the pump. I feel that way because I believe that gas prices are to a great extent, falsly high – that is, prices are manipulated, they are set at what the captive customer can tolerate, or can’t do anything about, (just like the tolls) or as the current saying goes, “gamed” by the producers. We wouldn’t have lower prices at the pump without the gas tax. When we traveled through the US this summer, prices were every bit as high in those states that didn’t have a gas tax. The state may as well keep some of that money here.

So you support her request for Bush to pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans? As a normal American I assume you know the troops were there to help the citizens of New Orleans.

I assume you support this statement, as well:

“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.”

“Put your money where your mouth is and enlist, and take your b.s back to unsound polis**ts where it belongs.” (explitive deleted)

Let me see if I understand your position. It’s acceptable to you for the left to use dead soldiers in sensational anti-war propaganda. Yet, anyone who criticizes an anti-war protester, who thinks we went to Iraq to benefit Israel and the US is occupying New Orleans, must enlist in the military to do so. Interesting position.

The DOT’s website is not a violation of PDC because it is merely answering a frequently asked question the DOT is receiving. That question being, what does the gas tax pay for. Just went to the DOT site and nowhere does it say you should vote no on 912. It merely lists the projects that are part of the gas tax bill.

1. If Initiative 912 should pass, in contrast to the approximately $8.5 billion available over several years for transportation investment as intended by the legislature from the new gas tax, the remaining amount would be approximately $3.0 billion. Of that, $120 million is by law disbursed to cities and counties.

2. Of what then would be left, approximately $716 million was specified by the Legislature to be funded from non gas tax revenue sources (weight and license fees) and was directed by the Legislature for specific projects in freight and other transportation modes. A sampling of these projects includes: King Street Station Track Improvements ($15 million); Overhaul of the Cascades Trains ($17 million); Customs improvements at Blaine/Whiterock $3 million); Port of Pasco Intermodal Facility improvements ($5.4 million); Cosmopolis Bypass at Grays Harbor ($800,000); Washington Street Railroad Crossing in Kennewick ($4.8 million).

3. What would then be left for funding from the 2005 tax package for investment in highways (including ferries) as directed by the Legislature would be approximately $2.2 billion, a fraction of what would be necessary to build the highway and ferry projects directed by the 2005 Legislature as funded by the full tax package. The result is that the spending direction given by the Legislature would be broken and will have to be re-brokered in a future legislative session. WSDOT would not, consistent with its need to observe legislative direction in its spending, pick and choose among the $2.2 billion to reprioritize the funds among just a few of the projects. Should WSDOT spend the remaining money, for example, on a fraction of the projects or build a fraction of each project? Not without direction from the Legislature and the Governor.

KVI is not stopped from talking on 912. The PDC ruling only covered the organizing that Wilbur and Carlson did during the petition gathering phase back in May. The Yes on 912 campaign, Wilbur, and Carlson are creating this problem themselves. The PDC and KVI management have no idea what they are talking about now.

I’m still under the impression that Carlson is acting on behalf of the Yes on 912 campaign. Carlson tends to be the person that speaks publically (off the radio) about voting for 912 and as such, he is not acting as a ‘political commentator’ but rather as a campaign spokesperson.

Dave Ross, the Seattle PI, etc, are not campaigning on behalf of No on 912, they are editorializing. This is something that Wilbur and Carlson are still free to do. My impression above is not the impression of the PDC and as such, as long as Carlson and Wilbur can avoid organizing campaigning events, they are absolutely free to editorialize on why people should vote for 912.

How does Brett Bader filing a complaint with the PDC constitute the WSDOT getting “whacked?” Any asshole with a stamp can file a complaint with the PDC, even if it’s completely meritless. But hey, it’s the silly season, so using the staff, time, and resources of a state agency for political grandstanding on the taxpayers’ dime is okay.

I don’t agree with the PDC on that one. This is supposedly a free country, in which any asshole with an opinion and the means to air it is entitled to do so, and I’m all for Carlson being able to spew his bullshit without having to file reports with bureaucrats as a condition of doing it. In fact, I’ll fight to defend his right to spew his bullshit. The PDC should take a hike.

You sound WAY like a Republican — you want 3 bridges for the price of 2. How about if I come to your place of work and ask for 3 of whatever your company sells but only have to pay for 2. Think I’ll get it?

Did you listen to Carlson and Wilbur during the May time frame? I listened to Carlson from time to time and every time I turned him on I heard John Carlson saying ‘Kirby Wilbur and I will be at XXXX for an Initiative 912 petition signing event’. That’s where they crossed the line. They are absolutely free to spew the idiocy about how the gas tax does nothing to relieve congestion, will fund the seattle monorail and/or Sound Transit, etc, etc. ;)

Gas price gouging by oil companies and gas taxes may be a blessing in disguise. When gas is cheap, people use it frivolously. The planet has a finite supply of oil, and at the rate we’re consuming it, the known reserves will be gone in 29 years. High gas prices:

We don’t need a higher gas tax to pay for the 520 bridge and AWV. All we need is to spend gas taxes collected in King County on projects in King County. If I-912 passes, the Legislature’s next action should be to stop making King County drivers subsidize the rest of the state to the tune of $127 million a year (and growing).

In light of recent PDC rulings, and in an effort to conserve syllables, and therefore airtime, for John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur, the phrase “Initiative 912” will be shortened to, simply, “Orp”. As in, “I’m voting for Orp,” and “do you support Orp?”

We hope this measure will allow Carlson and Wilbur to squeeze the maximum economy out of the English language, and extend their ration of on-air campaigning time up to 12 seconds per day between now and the election.

Reply to 5 and 14. There will be tolls on the new 520 bridge, that is certain. So Tacome Narrows will not be the only toll bridge. The Narrows Bridge itself is being paid for with tolls but the widening of highway 16 on both sides is being paid for with the nickel gas tax the legislature passed in 2003.

Also, in the 1960’s there were at least five major toll bridges in this state. Plus the gas tax, adjusted for inflation was a lot higher then than now. That, plus 90% federal interstate funding is how most of the roads we are driving on today got built.

Chimp @ 10 says “when I think of our #1 pet troll (Mr Irrelevant) I always see him as one of those stupid looking troll dolls from the 60’s, pink hare, big ears long nose and all.” Hey, I don’t have pink hare dumbass……it’s purple!!

Better yet — vote FOR I-912 so the oil companies can make even more profit — and Roger Rabbit can make MORE $$$!!! :D :D :D

Here’s how Exxon’s November Special Promotion works. The price of gas is currently set by supply and demand at about $2.89 a gallon. I.e., if the pump price were less than $2.89 a gallon, demand would exceed supply, and the free market price would rise until demand and supply balanced.

Soooo … if you trolls repeal the 3 1/2 cent gas tax that was added to the pump price this summer, the nominal pump price will be $2.85 1/2 a gallon, but this will create a demand-supply imbalance, and the pump price will quickly rise to $2.89 a gallon.

Ergo, the oil companies and Roger Rabbit will get the 3 1/2 cents, not WSDOT!! If i-912 passes, Roger Rabbit wins!!! So … if you want to see a fluffy bunny with pink ears, a cute cottontail, and razor-sharp claws giggling all the way to the bank — vote FOR I-912!!! You’ll still have to pay $2.89 for gas, but more of your money will go to Roger Rabbit, and less to safe roads!!! A vote for I-912 is a vote for Roger Rabbit’s prosperity!!! :D :D :D

Hey trolls — if you succeed in defeating I-912 and continue pumping that $2.89 gas into your SUVs, Roger Rabbit will even donate a small percentage of his profits to your favorite liberal causes! Please write below which Democratic candidates and/or liberal organizations you would like me to give your money to!!

(Feel free to add more lines; the amount of your money Roger will donate to your favorite Democratic candidates and liberal organizations is limited only by your imagination, pocketbook, and the size of your gas tank!!!)

A capitalist donkocrat? Rupert Wabbet, how can that be? Now you just pissed off half of your animal hind parts friends. Tell me how you can be a capitalist and support donkocratic themes? I thought the two were diametically opposed positions!

No, you can’t take from Republicans and give to Democrats. Remember we’re evil and greedy and we hide our wealth in Halliburton stock, (standard moonbat donkocratic line from animal hind parts lefties) so you can’t get to our stuff. It has to be donkocratic largesse you are moving around in your “ponzi” scheme. Like taking som eo fthe $$$Millions from rich donkocrats like the Shaw Group chairman or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or even George “King Moonbat” Soros, you know evil rich capitalist conglomerate donkocrats.

re 17: Why do you think it patriotic for more people to die in an unnecessary war based on lies so that the death of the previously killed soldiers remains meaningful? Isn’t that situation ethics? Declaring war on terrorism and making a police problem a world war makes as much sense as if Israel had declared war on Argentina after WWII. “We’re fighting fascism in Argentina so that we don’t have to fight it in Israel.”

Many of you moonbats apparently don’t understand US foreign policy. Here’s the deal:

We put up with a lot of bullshit from islamofascists going back to Nobel Prize winning Worst President of The 20th Century. We turned the other cheek for over 20 years. Those days are now over.

From now on, if we even get a whiff of suspicion that your country intends to do us harm, we are going to come kick your ass. We do not need nor want the permission of the UN or france. Once you are on our shit list, it is not up to us to prove that you are a threat; it is up to you to prove you are not. If you jack around “inspectors” or lie or play games, then we will assume you are guilty and treat you accordingly.

Can any of you loony moonbats explain in any kind of coherent way what’s wrong with this?

“We wouldn’t have won the Revolutionary War without the help of the French. We in the reality based community remember who our real friends are.”

It was a joke. Geez, don’t be so “real” you don’t have a sense of humor.

Comment by Ezkémo— 10/29/05 @ 8:46 am

You missed the point. Cindy Sheehan was supposed to be the catalyst to end the war (according to some). She turns out to have some pretty extreme views, that few in America agree with. Do you really still support her? David Duke does.

Please explain to me how how that applies to Saudi Arabia wsith a long history of funding terrorists and whose citizens flew the planes which were responsible for the largest terrorist attack ever on our country?

Well, by that rationale, God obvioulsly can’t prevent fat slobs like you from being a user and abuser of the system. You sit around, being a totally unproductive member of society, and milk the gov’t cheese for all it’s worth. You then think somehow in your twisted delusions that you are somehow more intelligent and superior than those that simply disagree with you. I suggest you get a job and stop sitting begind that computer screen all day in your bathrobe. Try being a burger technician, it seems fitting of you.

Mark, you’re confused. We’ve been kicking other people’s asses for decades because we want their bananas, oil, or whatever, or just plain don’t like their government. If you think the U.S.A. is some Great White Knight on the world stage that only frees oppressed peoples from evil dictators and never covets other countries’ resources in order to maintain our standard of living above everyone else’s, you either are in denial or have your head buried in the sand.

The big political and foreign policy issue of our times is precisely whether American voters should trust people who think like you to decide for the rest of us (A) when to fight, and (B) who to fight. The answer to that is a resounding, very loud “No.” You right-wing freaks are immoral war-mongers. You see the world in terms of “kicking ass” without a thought to right and wrong. In Iraq, you assholes attacked the wrong country — a country that had not attacked or threatened us, had not done us wrong, and was not a threat to us — and then you tortured and murdered innocent Iraqi civilians. That makes you no better than the other aggressors of history — the Mongols, the Romans, Napolean, the Nazis, the commies. FUCK YOU AND YOUR ILK, MARK!!! We’re going to take this country back from you right-wing immoral bastards!!!

Hey Cynical, keep pumping that $2.51 gas! I make out on every gallon you buy!! It’s true gas was $2.89 the last time I bought any, but then, I don’t buy gas very often. My powerful hind feet with razor-sharp claws get me around quite nicely, thank you — think of my huge feet as Bunny Transit.

re 52: All bats are nocturnal. What is accomplished by unnecessarily adding the word ,”moon”? When we speak of fringe righties as “DICKHEADS”, the distinction between the word “head” and the properly descriptive “DICKHEAD” is immediately apparent, even to the occasionally perceptive “DICKHEAD” fringe righty. Another term for fringe righties that is gaining credence “the one-eyed glass belly button DICKHEADS.” It implies that the fringe righty is not only a dickhead, but has that dickhead shoved so far up his ass that he needs a glass belly button to see anything at all!

DeLay, Frist, Irving Libby—-:What a team!!!! I sure hope it just keeps on growing. This fringe righty presidency has , with great foresight, built more prisons, so there will be no lack of room for Republican politicians.

Moonbat is a political epithet coined in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of “The Libertarian Samizdata,” a libertarian weblog. It was originally a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian, but now the term enjoys great currency in the conservative and libertarian blogosphere as an all-purpose insult for modern liberals, peace protestors, and other ideological opponents. It is similar to the epithets Feminazi or Idiotarian.

According to de Haviland, a moonbat is “someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be.” Adriana Cronin defines the term as “someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency.”

Moonbat is frequently used to describe those who believe in conspiracy theories. Examples include those who believe that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were engineered by George W. Bush, or that the US invaded Iraq to drive up oil prices or under the directions of Israel.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR ILK, MARK!!! We’re going to take this country back from you right-wing immoral bastards!!!

The left taking back this country… they better start lying through their teeth and act more conservative than the repubs for that to happen. Of course you still got the lying MSM in your back pockets though. Either that or get a third party on the scale of Perot. The left will never win if they act like their anti-american, commie loving, terrorist hugging self.

Mark, You are one of the biggest cocksmokers I have ever ran across. I just read a whole bunch of your crap and feel very cheated, as that time was really wasted. Assholes like you are a prime example of what has gone wrong with our fine country. You are not fit to lick the lint off the ridge of Bush’s ballsack.

“Yet, anyone who criticizes an anti-war protester, who thinks we went to Iraq to benefit Israel and the US is occupying New Orleans, must enlist in the military to do so. Interesting position.”

Not necessarily, but we do think apologists for Shrubco’s war of aggression (which is how it will be remembered by history) ought to put up or shut the fuck up.

BTW – I don’t disagree with a lot of what you quote Sheehan as saying – the neoconartist PNAC types do fetishize Isreal, and U.S foreign policy in the Middle East has a lot to do with why a lot of people there (and throughout the world) think we are a bunch of fucking hypocrites when we talk about freedom and democracy.

Cindy Sheehan did more for American democracy in 3 minutes than you will in a lifetime, and she’s not done yet. It’s obvious that you fascist armchair warriors find that galling.

Hey Cornbread – Tell me exactly what you don’t like about what I’ve said. Be specific. Were you offended by my “cleansing” comment? Do you disagree with my reasons on why “diversity” is evil? Do you not agree on my 5 step plan to fix transporation? Tell me in moral or intellectual terms why I’m wrong. On anything.

Goldie never ran an item on the peace vigils the other evening. In Olympia we had two and they were well attended. The Olympia community had already planned for it’s major protest Saturday so the fact folks showed up for the Moveon.org vigils was somewhat surprising. Today the major commeration of the 2,000 dead (now 2,012) was held in downtown Olympia. Several hundred showed each up and lined both sides of the streets. Each person had a sign that had the name and day of death of the soldiers. Now this might not be surprising–Olympia is a blue city in a blue state after all. What was surprising is that the partipants were not the usual list of suspects who always show up for things like this. With little publicity large numbers of folks showed up. And adding further weight to the belief of many that puvlic support for Bush and the War is eroding was confirmed in the response of those traveling along the thoroughfare. The honks and signs of support we had from drivers was huge– much greater than just a few weeks ago when we did the Cindy Sheehan inspired vigils. We even had soldiers (Ft. Lewis? National Guard?) give us the Thumbs Up! Not too long ago would have been a different finger they waved at us. It amazes me that the Bush folks understand what is important to remain in harmony with their base (with an occasional slip up like Meirs) while our Democratic elected officeholders seem to be ignoring the posiion of their base. When will our Senators and Gov, Congressmen, and other Democratic leadership recognize that they must follow the lead of their base and come out strong against the war. And not just in speeches to the local Demo organizations. When will Senator Murray and Cantwell step up tot he plate and say “Congress made a mistake. We believed the Bush administration and supported the war. Now we know they lied and we need to have an exit strategy.” It’s time to do it– or why should your base give a dman whether you are elected or not if there is no difference between you and the GOP?

Thanks for that Danny. You burnt out hippies sure have a way with words. Hey everyone before you smoke that last bowl today we should all meditate on what Danny means here. Get in tune with it man. Can you dig his vibe. Yea that is what Iam talking about.

“Moonbat is frequently used to describe those who believe in conspiracy theories. Examples include those who believe that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were engineered by George W. Bush, or that the US invaded Iraq to drive up oil prices or under the directions of Israel.”

Hey Mark, would you say it’s also fair to apply the term “moonbat” to the one-eyed glass belly button dickheads who think Iraq was behind 9/11 or Bush & Cheney didn’t game the intel?

What do you expect from a bottom feeding commodities trader like Mark LeRedneck? At least, that’s what he implies he is … but some of us suspect MTR is actually a pimply 13-year-old junior high kid sneaking onto his dad’s computer.

Hey Stefan — yeah you, the guy with the silly shit-eating smirk on his goofy face, posing in the photo as an election worker — how much MONEY have the courts awarded you against King County for public disclosure violations? Are you and your lawyer up to one cent (e.g., $0.01) yet? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

Wabbit – Didja notice how that invisible hand has been working lately? Erl at $60/bbl now, down almost 15% from the peak? Amazing eh? And it all happened while you were on “vacation” and didn’t hafta come out of your hutch. Aren’t free markets great?

Did I say that I have a problem with free markets, Dumb Ass? When did I say that? High gas prices are good!! Read my posts above, especially the one about Roger Rabbit getting rich from oil stocks. Then go fill up your gas tank again, and make Roger Rabbit a little richer.

I got out of about 40% of each of these back when they were skyrocketing. I stayed 100% in my favorite oil sector company, National Oilwell Varco………..High 68.33 Close 61.77 So us filling our SUV’s in the last few weeks has only helped you lose less money than you would have otherwise lost you Silly Wabbit@! Dude….do you actually follow stock prices? Your illness has taken something outta ya. I’m concerned…….cuz at least you fight for what you believe in…..even if it is pretty much bullshit.

Geez E – WTF are you talking about? Where does it say we need the permission of france to go to war?

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

“…and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

UN Participation Act (1945) “SEC. 5. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, whenever the United States is called upon by the Security Council to apply measures which said Council has decided, pursuant to article 41 of said Charter, are to be employed to give effect to its decisions under said Charter…”

and UN Charter: “Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

That’s what I’m referring to. Now, I’m not a constitutional scholar, nor am I an expert in constitutional law, so I’d be more than happy to hear directly from someone who is. My past reading on this matter as well as discussions with colleagues involved in constitutional law has indicated that the relevant wording is section 2 of Article VI of the USC, which in effect makes the UN Charter the supreme law or the land. This is also the specific wording that some anti-UN individuals and organizations (including some pretty fringe elements) object to.

You’ll notice that the Narrows is well under construction, and the Viaduct is not. That project came through with tolls, separate from the tax packages, and it was as a result started much earlier. If you would prefer it to be paid for with gas taxes, you wouldn’t be getting it for at least three more years.

No, I don’t think that’s accurate. I think it would be better to say that the UN has further say on the legality of certain international decisions undertaken by its member states. That is one of the functions of the UN, and one of the reasons the organization was created. And further, to me, the issue is not whether the US is too powerful — it is arguably the most powerful nation on earth at the moment — but rather how that power is exercised, which, I would argue, is not always in the best interest of its citizens.

It looks like both Puddy and MtR have difficulty grasping the meaning of “and all theaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…” When we signed the UN Charter, we made it, along with our Constitution, the “supreme law of the land.”

When you disregard international law the way we disregarded it in order to invade Iraq, you find that other countries tend to be far less willing to uphold international law when you have a particular complaint. For example, by invading Iraq, we made it far more difficult to get other countries to uphold our concepts of intellectual property rights.

Even without the explicit language in Article VI, one must still wonder whatever happened to the rule of law? Can we really think of ourselves as a nation of laws when we also refuse to allow ourselves to be ruled by law?

“Even without the explicit language in Article VI, one must still wonder whatever happened to the rule of law? Can we really think of ourselves as a nation of laws when we also refuse to allow ourselves to be ruled by law?”

Well, that’s precisely the issue: how can we expect others to be beholden to the tenuous ideal of international law when we flout such rule of law when we see it not to be in our best interests? The US is certainly not the first nor only country to do this, but I think the moral posturing post from the administration 2003 is pretty hollow given their callous regard for international law.

Rick, google: “UN Treaty above the US Constitution” and see what the learned say about the US Constitution vs UN garbage. You get your info from the wrong sources. That’s why we need a constitutional law judge on the SCOTUS to uphold our Constitution!

The SCOTUS has consistently said the US Constitution is above all treaties, except the shit lately from Steven Breyer, which Scalia rightly ridiculed.

Rick and E -C’mon… yer pullin’ my leg right? Are you guys for real? Do you really think the UN is our highest authority?

One of my degrees is in International Business. I studied International Law mostly as it relates to sales, contracts, trade agreements, and intellectual property. International law only exists to the extent that sovereign nations agree to a set of rules and choose to follow them for dispute resolution. But it’s pure fantasy on your part to think that there’s some kind of provision in the Constitution that yields our sovereignty to another body. That’s crazy…

Tell me, do you think the UN should be allowed to levy taxes? If so, for what purposes and at what kind of rates.

The issue has nothing to do with relinquishing our sovereignty to the UN Security Council. As you rightfully stated, “International law only exists to the extent that sovereign nations agree to a set of rules and choose to follow them for dispute resolution.” We had agreed to the set of laws that governed the legitimacy of one country invading another country, and we broke those laws when we invaded Iraq.

I’m also curious to hear from the right-winger and others here as to how exactly severe the terrorist threat to the average US citizen is. That is, what are the risks to you, right now, that you might become victim to a terrorist incident? How do these risks compare to other risks which you face on a daily basis? Just wondering.

Oh, and one other thing I’m curious about: How is the Bush’s administration’s stated “with us or against us” view of the world epistemologically different from bin Laden’s world view, as for instance stated in his so-called “letter to the American people”? Yes, it’s a philosophical question. Just wondering.

Let’s see. You don’t dispute the conclusion that we broke international law when we invaded Iraq, indeed we broke the very same international law we invoked to justify using military force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait back in 1991. I’m not sure if you dispute the legitimacy of that international law, but you provided the precise reasoning why that law is legitimate: you uphold that law, because you’re going to invoke it for your own ends elsewhere. The legitimacy of the rule of law with respect to international relations is no different than the legitimacy for the rule of law within the borders of any given country. We uphold that law, because the alternative is chaos.

I’m not particularly surprised that you would raise the specter of “hopelessly inept and corrupt” with respect to the UN while evidence of ever-widening circles of corruption within our own government assaults us on nearly a daily basis, but I don’t see it as particularly relevant. Neither the fact that we broke international law nor the legitimacy of the particular international law that we broke are subject to well-reasoned dispute.

I would only add to your analysis by pointing out Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

Essentially, by violating the U.N. Charter, the Bush Administration has violated domestic law.

E @ 116 – I wouldn’t change the form of government or the parties. But you guys are clearly extremists who have lost touch with reality. Your hatred of free markets, your obsession with special privilege, your desire to turn over our government to foreigners, your inability to understand that peace comes from war, your proclivity to read things into the constitution that aren’t there and deny things that are there… those things make you unfit to serve as leaders.

You guys need to come back to center a little bit. JFK is one who I would consider a good democrat. By today’s standards, he’d be considered a conservative.

Rabbit@114– Good for you about getting in NOV @ $40. But it got up to $68 recently…and backed off 10% recently. To me, 10% down in a couple weeks is fairly significant and LOST money. Trying to teach a Silly Rabbit that selling high is ok is going to be difficult I see….especially if you can’t see that a 10% drop is LOST money. That’s ok Rabbit….having dumbasses like you in the market makes it easier for guys like me!!!

None of them are straw men. Those are all things you kooks on the left believe in and promote.

I’ve read a lot of stupid crap on HA, but yours wins the award for Most Stupid Post Ever on HA. I’ve never heard anyone make the argument that the Constitution recognizes the UN as the ultimate authority.

Not that I’m an expert in international law, but I don’t see where International law requires nations to receive approval from the UN Security Council for either humanitarian intervention in an existing conflict (Kosovo) or preemptive invasions where there currently is no war (Iraq).

The whole point in light of the revelations that have come out as a by-product of Fitzgerald’s investigation is that, in the absence of real WMD or a credible effort on the part of Iraq to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program, there is no justification for a preemptive strike based on immanent threat. Yet, this is exactly the jist of the Bush administration’s claimed justification for invading Iraq.

But wait a minute Rick and DJ. Clinton bombed many thousands of innocents in Kosovo and Serbia and you all turned a blind eye. What about his abuse of “International Treaties and Charters”? Well?

And there is no byproduct of any investigation. That’s leftist bullshit. You guys just can’t accept Karl Rove is free, free, FREE! Get it. You are sore losers and you can’t accept that your beloved leaders said he had WMDs. Your own newspapers the NYT and WaPo said he had WMDs before 2002. Your argument is full of crap. Soon Tom DeLay will go free and then the public will see the full politics of personal destruction in action.

Just like Scary Reid saying this crap. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051030/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation_128;_ylt=Ahdh.aAYTXAAB9VrCfLdSoNqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I’m not sure how my previous comment isn’t an answer to that question. The circumstances that justify military intervention in an existing armed conflict for humanitarian reasons are not the same as those that justify preemptive strikes. That’s international law.

One might claim that our invasion of Iraq was justified for humanitarian reasons, but why, then, was it necessary to claim that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute a defunct nuclear weapons program on the basis of evidence that most everyone knew to have been forged?

“But you guys are clearly extremists who have lost touch with reality.”

A leftist extremist would be, say, a communist. Is that what you think Democrats are? If so, I think you have a rather skewed view of political ideologies, as well as of the political realities in this country. The Dem. party is, in my view, anything but a leftist party’ one of the issues that many progressives have with the Dems is that, if anything, they’re too centrist. In my view, the problem is that the the Republican party has moved far too far to the right, and puts more stock in the welfare of US corporations than it does in US citizens.

“Your hatred of free markets” I don’t hate free markets, nor do many progressives in general. Many would in fact argue that our “free” markets aren’t really “free” — they don’t require efficiency, especially where many environmental issues are concerned, as legislation is often pushed through to protect special interests. That would be, in my view, most certainly a type of special privelege (see below).

“your obsession with special privilege” For whom?

“your desire to turn over our government to foreigners” That is a rather ludicrous statement; I don’t know of any liberals or progressives who would hand over governance of the US to foreign entities.

“your inability to understand that peace comes from war” Peace doees not necessarily come from war, as such that is not a logical statement. There are too much evidence to the contrary to assert carte blanche that your statement is true.

“your proclivity to read things into the constitution that aren’t there and deny things that are there… those things make you unfit to serve as leaders.”

If we take Article VI of the USC as discussed above, my statements would be a fairly strict reading of that document.

We had numerous UN resolutions condemning Iraq for violating the cease-fire agreement after the Kuwait invasion. Resolutions are fine and dandy, but if not followed up with some sort of action are meaningless. Obvioulsy, the UN was happy with their resolutions meaning absolutely nothing. Why? Because France, Russia, and George Galloway were making millions off Saddam.

A corrupt institution that is not elected, and has no over-ruling authority, is illegitimate. To hold up the UN as the world authority is a joke. It is a collection of despots from non-democratic countries who have no motivation than to line their own pockets, and figure out how to stay in New York instead of returning to their pathetic little backwater countries.

Believe it or not, I have a brain of my own. I don’t take talking points from anyone. Is my post so iron-clad that you can’t actually argue it, or is this just a lazy way to disagree without having to actually think?

You may have a brain of your own, but your comments don’t address the issue of the legitimacy of our invasion of Iraq under international law. Whatever we might think of the UN itself, that has little to do with the legitimacy of an international law that we, ourselves, invoked in order to justify the use of military force to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Yeah proud ass. We need a lying,leftist international body to teach the world on how not to get things done. Keep it around for shit and giggles. Just scale back the money we waste in that organization.

And while I’m at it, this ties in fairly well with a question I posed above, which I’ll modify slightly here:

How is the Bush’s administration’s stated “with us or against us” view of the world epistemologically different from bin Laden’s world view, as for instance stated in his so-called “letter to the American people”? What are the advantages/disadvantages of the presence of a world body like the UN in arbitrating such views? You may addresss the philosophical and/or practical aspects of these questions above, should you choose.

You are either for freedom or you are against it. You are either for property rights or you are against them. You are either for democratic republics or you are against them.

As I recall, Bin Laden isn’t for any of these. I also have troubles believing that the UN is unreservedly for them, either.

Our treaties are limited and specific. No where do they give away our sovreignty to the UN. Why would you possibly want a bunch of unelected people, despots or otherwise, to have absolute authority over you? Thankfully the UN hasn’t been able to tax yet, although they try on a regular basis. Ever hear of taxation without representation?

Janet, please point to where any of us have discussed relinquishing total sovereignty to the United Nations. That’s not what the Constitutional clause with respect to treaties is about nor does it have anything to do with arguments about the legality of our invasion of Iraq. Save the straw for the horses, Janet, and address the issues that have actually been raised.

Rick, spare me the platitudes. You draw a moral equivalency between bin Laden and Bush, by saying they both have absolutes. If you can’t tell the difference between the two, as it seems you are incapable of doing, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.

If bin Laden wants to address the people of the United States, he can do so. We don’t need a body like the UN to act as intermediary. Of course, the man is a terrorist, and would be arrested or killed promptly upon entering the US. So, I guess he has to continue making tapes of his pontificating from some obscure cave.

Iraq was daily shooting at our military. The UN issued multiple resolutions telling Saddam to cease and desist, but offered no consequences. So, we are no longer able to defend ourselves, unless the UN says it is okay? That is the way to our destruction.

I don’t know if your first two paragraphs were an attempt to answer my questions above. If so, they don’t address the first part, which is how the “with us or against us” world view espoused by Bush is epistemologically different than the bin Laden world view. You give examples of property rights, democratic republics, and freedom, but these do not address the central, epistomological question.

By the way, your comment about our treaties not giving away our sovereignty is correct, and this is where I think you and others are misunderstanding the point that I, RS and others are making here: agreeing that the UN is the ultimate arbiter of matters of international law is not the same thing as allowing a supranational organization to usurp a nation’s sovereignty. Such organizations are inherently a compromise, and I think to replace the UN with what you suggest (an organization limited to countries with “free and transparent elections” — something which many would argue is not unequivocally happening here) substitutes compromise with ideology. This, then brings me back to the question above…

I can of course attempt to explain this epistemological quandary (which is actually not as complicated as it might seem), but I’d just like to see to what extent others — particularly those whose political views differ from mine — have thought about it.

Actually, Dr. E made the comparison, and the comparison he made was between the rhetoric of ben Laden and Bush, not the individuals themselves. In other words, you’ve just added two more straw men to the pile of rotting hay presently festering on the right side of the isle.

Iraq was shooting at our aircraft as we enforced the no-fly zones over Iraq’s own air space–pretty much a wash when it comes to justifying an all out invasion followed by regime change.

Lastly, if you’re going to decry the UN in any way, using UN resolutions to justify our invasion rather duplicitous, don’t you think?

Okay, at the risk of sounding like an idiot, what in the heck is “epistemological quandary”? It sounds like a debating tactic that is meant to silence the other side, because they aren’t sure what in the heck you are talking about.

I just knew you guys would make some ridiculous comment that we wouldn’t qualify for a body limited to those countries with free and transparent elections.

I agree that there needs to be a forum for discussion and compromise. I fail to see why we need a body like the UN to do so. And anyway, I’ll take free nations, that are ideological, to despotic regimes that enslave their people but are long on being able to compromise with us.

Yes, that’s right, I posed the question, comparing the philosophical world view as evidenced by, among other things, the rhetoric emanating from both parties. There are many levels of intellectual incongruity that I find rather intriguing, which is why I posed the question in the first place.

The “epistemological quandry” of which Dr. E. speaks is the world view wherein “sides” are determined by black and white litmus tests. In terms of cogent arguments, this “black and white” litmus test is a rhetorical device (debating tactic to use your phrase) that is of referred to as the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Great. All my education, including a masters, and I still have no idea what you are talking about. But isn’t that the point? When an explanation degenerates into having to bring in the League of Nations, I suspect that the discussion is hopeless. The two of you can go ahead with the mental masturbation that is needed to explore the “epistemological quandry” of bin Laden vs anyone who isn’t determined to destroy the rest of the world.

Saying “you’re either X or Y” regardless of the “X” and the “Y” is quite often a form of the fallacy of the excluded middle. In other words, Bush’s rhetoric about being “for us or against” us is as much bullshit as it is when ben Laden uses it.

And, yes, it’s sad that you can manage to pick up a Master’s degree in any subject, yet still fail to catch a rather glaring fallacy in your own logic.

I should add that there is a legitimate basis for Janet’s confusion. I believe that Dr. E has misused the word “epistemology”. As I understand his remarks, the word he really meant to use is “ontology”. The fallacy of the excluded middle involves an incomplete ontology, i.e. it only admits the existence of extremes.

In Dr. E’s defense, however, developing a comprehensive ontology is a key element of any epistemological exercise. It’s rather easy to think of one and say the other.

No, Janet, it’s an attempt to debate the real issues, and not some hopelessly contrived “either or” conundrum.

And, please stop whinging about not understanding what we’re talking about. At this point, the issues have been adequately explained to you (or, at least, sufficiently explained that a person who really does have a Master’s degree ought not have the difficulty you profess). President Bush’s rhetoric about either being for the US or against it, and your regurgitation of that rhetoric in terms of either being in favor of invading Iraq or against fighting terrorism, is complete crap.

Both you and Mark of the Crimson Nape have gone down dark alley after dark alley in order to avoid actually addressing the issues that we have raised. Enough of the straw, already. It’s abundantly clear that we broke international law when we invaded Iraq, and you have yet to muster a cogent argument to the contrary.

Now, see if you can follow the reasoning, here. While President Bush listed a number of reasons in favor of invading Iraq, only one of those reasons would have squared the invasion with the provisions of international law: that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the security of the the United States. A linch-pin in that argument was the claim that the Iraqis were attempting to reconstitute their nuclear weapons program, and a key claim to buttress that idea was the claim that Iraq had contracted with Niger to obtain uranium.

It now turns out that the whole idea was a lie. The documents that formed the basis of the early intelligence reports turned out to have been forgeries. Completely independent of those documents, Joseph Wilson went to Niger to investigate the claim, and came back saying not only that such an agreement hasn’t happend, but that it couldn’t possibly have happened. It’s worth noting that Wilson disputes several of the claims that the Senate’s Select Committe on Intelligence made in their report regarding his trip to Niger.

Now, if there isn’t a fire in all of this, there sure is a hell of a lot of smoke. Iraq had no WMD. The evidence to suppor the claims that Iraq had WMD was sketchy at best. Yet, no other reason justifies our invasion of Iraq in terms of international law. This is why the whole affair stinks, and it’s what has people who aren’t hopelessly in love with the President rather fuming. We’ve been deceived, and that deception has led us to war.

I should point out that “people who aren’t hopelessly in love with the President” includes people like Brent Scowcroft. Tomorrow morning, go pick up a copy of The New Yorker.

Guys: Either your country supports terrorism (Iran, Syria, etc.) or you are against terrorism. Which countries stood up and said we’re on the side of the US? I think it’s awfully eye opening that Russia was mute until the Chechnya school incident. All of a sudden Putin wanted to discuss terrorism. Now we add the Chinese Muslims in Western China. Have you all been paying attention to that? Probably not. Better Google it. When you become elucidated you will understand terrorism is everywhere, whether it’s Bali*2 or Jemaah Islamiyah in the Phillipines, it’s everywhere.

Regarding the use of epistemological in a cognitive argument over world view, here is the difference.

Bin Laden wants an Islamic world, similar in the vein of Saladin in his quest to retake Jerusalem. He has stated this over and over and over. He has threatened his home land Saudi Arabia. Now queue in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who calls for the destruction of Israel. What would be there if Israel is gone? Islamic Jerusalem called Al-Qud!

So you idiots equate their special sauce with George Bush? How quaint! You lefties are so mind polluted it’s scary! George Bush wants freedom. The only freedom one gets through Al-Qaeda is freedom from this life through a messy death. That’s their freedom. That’s why democrats are repugnant to the American people even when GWB has a 37% approval rating. It’s stupid equivocations made by your side calling Bush = Bin Laden. And none of your ilk can see the problem with your stupid argument!!! It nauseates the common American!

Rick Schaut, did you read the Senate Report? Did You watch Fox News Sunday today? Even your main MSM cheeleader Juan Williams agreed that Joseph Wilson was kicked in the ass by the Senate Report where his CIA report said there was evidence that the Iraqis were investigating Niger yellow cake but he writes in the NY Times the exact opposite. What did the bi-partisan Senate Report say? Joe Wilson is a LIAR!!!! Good try Rick. But you need to improve those Internet skillz.

“The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or “yellowcake.” That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a “former ambassador” to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson — who later became a vocal critic of the President’s 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well — evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium. Wilson reported that he had met with Niger’s former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between the two countries. Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki “interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.” In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that “for most analysts” Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”

“The Butler Report

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had “credible” information — from several sources — that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.”

Finally, if you lefties actually used the Internet to expand your mind, I would commend your efforts. So I say again, only GBS forces me to think here. Dr. E. you are a close second. You are dropping down the list Rick with that commentary above!

For the second time, no one has equated ben Laden with George Bush, at least not in terms of a serious argument. We find their rhetoric equally wanting, and Dr. E’s argument was a way of pointing out how the same rhetorical device that ben Laden uses seems repugnant to you when ben Laden uses it, but doesn’t seem all that repugnant to you when George Bush uses it.

Note that, your restatement of the Bush “either or” isn’t entirely accurate. Bush’s form implies that one either supports the United States in all our actions, or one is in favor of terrorism. According to that rhetoric, one cannot object to our invastion of Iraq and still claim to be against terrorism. and I find that particular line of reasoning to be horribly repugnant.

As for ben Laden’s form of Wahabbism, I’d be more than happy to discuss the details and history of that line of thought. It might even be an interesting discussion from the standpoint of understanding what really does motivate Islamists. If you’re up for it, I’m willing. It just doesn’t seem all that relevant to the present discussion.

As for wiping Israel off the map, you might want to consider that idea from the point of view of members of the Baha’i Faith. If there is anyone or anything Islamists hate more than western democracy, it’s the Baha’i Faith. Whatever Islamists would do in Jerusalem, it would pale in comparison to what they would do in Haifa.

Now, can we, at last, talk about the legality of our invastion of Iraq?

Rick, interesting write: “no one has equated ben Laden with George Bush, at least not in terms of a serious argument”, what are you writing about? The epistemological argument is just that. It is a cognitive attempt by the left to make that equation between Goerge and Osama. Come on Rick, I didn’t say it, Cynical didn’t say it, Rufus didn’t say it. Your side says it. That’s how your side looks at the Iraqi conflict. Osama attacked the US and the US attacked Iraq. There is the epistemological argument. Today Leon Panetta uses the word quagmire again. Golly, I thought the quagmire of Vietnam was Kennedy/Johnson.

Sorry Rick, can’t use a left wing blog. I relinked to that web site 20 minutes ago, knowing you’d go there to know if you would use it here. That’s like me using Brent Bozell’s org. to argue stuff here. I used the Senate Report! What Joe Wilson says after the fact and written by some left winger does not hold water to that written and agreed to by your side in the final report. Try again. I

Also Rick you don’t want use lefty blogs to navigate to the lowest level of lefty thought like JustDumbBozo. You must remember JustDumbBozo, who when confronted with innumerable facts over his illustrious economic pundit Paul Krugman, he continued to wallow in the muck. When the NY Times finally agreed to correct the record, where was JustDumbBozo? I think he crawled back into his small intellectual prison, because he surely didn’t correct his record!

You didn’t actually read Wilson’s response. If you had, you’d have noticed that he used the Senate Select Committee’s own report to refute their conclusions. That report is so full of holes, indeed by the Committee’s own admission it’s incomplete, that it’s more a propaganda piece than it is a well-reasoned set of conclusions based on the facts.

By the way, I note how it’s OK for you to cite Fox News, but it’s not OK for me to cite a liberal blogger for a response. Are we back to ad-hominem arguments again? Can’t actually refute the arguments or facts stated, so you call into question the integrity of the source. Not a good way to win an argument, Puddy.

As for the comparison between ben Laden’s rhetoric and Bush’s rhetoric, why do you persist in making the argument more than it is? Is acknowledging the hypocricy of accepting a particular line of reasoning when it’s used by President Bush and rejecting it when it’s used by ben Laden just to painful for you?

And, lastly, why do you still refuse to address the legitimacy of our invasion of Iraq under international law? It seems the more I bring that question up, the more indignant you get, and the more times you question my intelligence. Do you not realize that the increasingly shrill tone of your response only serves to highlight the extent to which you have ducked that issue?

Time to cut the bullshit, Puddy. Do you honestly believe our invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by international law?

Actually, I suspected that confusion would arise, since the rhetorical device is ontological. The rhetorical device, however, is a manifestation of a more general epistemology — that’s what I was trying to point out.

Hey Rick, I have a job so I am now getting back onto the blog. Me shrill, naah. I am ojecting to you using the standard liberal talking points to make a comment. Where in this discussion did I make a reference to Fox News? That’s a left field straw man!

Did Russia ask the UN to invade Afghanistan? Has China asked the UN about Taiwan? Did China ask about those islands off of Japan? We do things that are in our best national interest. People may not like it. To take your question to a higher level, where were we with Rwanda? Nuff said there! If the UN doesn’t like it, then move the UN to France and have the French fork over the 1.1 Billion or so to run the corrupt organization. Now this has nothing to do about us throwing our weight around.

Back up at 162, you asked if I had watched Fox News. Sorry, but you cited it as a source. What am I going to see on Fox News that isn’t anything more than a recital of RNC talking points? Give me a break.

By the way, the whole “Joe Wilson is a liar” smear is complete bullshit. The only way anyone can legitimately claim that Joe Wilson is a liar is for the claimant to have access to the facts in Wilson’s report. Unfortunately, his report is classified information. The whole smear is based on differences in subjective interpretations of Wilson’s report, not the facts of the report itself. Subjective interpretations are matters of opinion, and it’s not possible to lie when stating one’s opinion.

As for the UN, you’re still beating that straw man at a time when he has long since been very dead. I’m not talking about the UN and/or asking the UN for permission. I’m asking you whether or not our invasion of Iraq violated international law.

I’d ask you to stop avoiding the question, but I know you won’t. I’ve given you more than ample opportunity to flat out answer the question, and you’ve repeatedly dodged it.

No Rick I don’t think we violated International law. I answered it but you are too dense to see it. “We do things that are in our best national interest. People may not like it.” But to you I h a v e t o s p e l l i t o u t!

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.